USA Truck, Inc. v. Webster
| Decision Date | 15 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-19-859,CV-19-859 |
| Citation | 599 S.W.3d 368,2020 Ark. App. 226 |
| Parties | USA TRUCK, INC., and Broadspire Services, Inc., Appellants v. Duane WEBSTER, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: R. Scott Zuerker, Fort Smith, and Victor L. Crowell, for appellants.
Walker & Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., Fort Smith, for appellee.
USA Truck, Inc., and Broadspire Services, Inc., appeal from a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the "Commission") finding that appellee Duane Webster proved he sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine and that USA Truck1 was liable for the payment of all reasonable and necessary medical treatment. USA Truck contends that the Commission erred in finding that a recommended cervical fusion was reasonably necessary to treat Webster’s injury by relying on a medical opinion without discussing or weighing other contradictory medical evidence that determined the condition was caused by degenerative disc disease. We affirm in part and remand for further findings.
At the time of his injury, Webster was fifty-three years old and had worked as an over-the-road truck driver for USA Truck since May 2014. His job required him to ensure that the weight on the trailer and truck was equally distributed, which he accomplished by sliding the trailer wheels either forward or backward. Webster testified that around 5:30 p.m. on Friday, August 3, 2018, while in the middle of a twelve-day run, he was attempting to distribute the weight, and as he was pulling on the tandem-release bar, he gave it "a good yank" and felt "a sting" in his neck and arm. He did not report it to USA Truck at the time because he did not think it was anything severe, and there was no one available to take the report.
Webster testified that his condition progressively worsened over the weekend, and on Monday morning, he mentioned it to his dispatcher, who asked him if he could "work through it." Webster said he would try to do so and finished his run, working another ten days. When he completed his run and returned home, he discussed his condition with USA Truck’s workers’ compensation department and was sent for evaluation.
On August 16, 2018, Dr. Janan Lane at Northwest Health Occupational Medicine diagnosed Webster with radiculopathy of the cervical region, strain of the muscle and tendon at neck level, and secondary kyphosis of the cervical region. She prescribed medication and stretching exercises, and she placed him on restricted duties. On September 4, Webster was examined by Dr. Konstantin Berestnev at Arkansas Occupational Health Clinic. An x-ray taken that day showed no acute findings but identified degenerative changes to the vertebrae in his neck. Dr. Berestnev diagnosed Webster with a sprain of ligaments of his cervical spine and treated him with an injection, medication, and physical therapy and continued Webster on restricted duty of no driving.
A cervical MRI was performed on October 18, which revealed a straightening of the normal lordotic curvature of the cervical spine, degenerative changes of the cervical spine, and mild to moderate central canal stenosis at C5/C6 and C6/C7. Webster returned to Dr. Berestnev on October 22, complaining that his neck and right arm were still in pain and that the MRI had made his condition worse. Dr. Berestnev reviewed the MRI results and opined that Webster suffered from degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine and that the condition was not work related. He prescribed prednisone and referred him to his primary-care physician, Dr. Patrick McGowan.
Medical records from Dr. McGowan indicate that he had treated Webster in 2015 for pain in his "right shoulder that radiates to his neck." Webster had not returned thereafter until Dr. McGowan examined him on October 26, 2018. At that time, Dr. McGowan discovered a knot upon palpation in the musculature area of his right neck. He gave him a trigger-point injection in the area of the knot and referred him to Dr. Larry Armstrong, a neurosurgeon, for further evaluation. Dr. Armstrong diagnosed Webster with cervical stenosis of the spine, cervical spinal-cord compression, and degeneration of the cervical disc. Due to the narrowing in Webster’s spinal cord and spinal canal, Dr. Armstrong recommended surgery.
On April 23, 2019, at USA Truck’s counsel’s request, radiologist Dr. Theodore Hronas reviewed Webster’s MRI and opined that there were "no objective findings of an acute injury as the result of the accidental work-related injury." Dr. Hronas never met with, examined, or treated Webster.
On May 1, 2019, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on Webster’s claim. The ALJ found that Webster had met his burden of proof with respect to a compensable cervical spine injury and that, to the extent he had a preexisting degenerative condition, it was aggravated by the incident on August 3, 2018. The ALJ found that USA Truck was liable for payment of "all reasonable and necessary treatment in connection with claimant’s compensable cervical spine injury," specifically including the medical treatment provided by Drs. McGowan, Berestnev, and Armstrong. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s opinion. When the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion, thereby making the findings and conclusions of the ALJ the Commission’s findings and conclusions, we consider both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s opinion in our review. Emergency Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Burnett , 2015 Ark. App. 288, at 2, 462 S.W.3d 369, 371.
This court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings and affirms if supported by substantial evidence. Pyle v. Woodfield, Inc. , 2009 Ark. App. 251, 306 S.W.3d 455. Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might find as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The question is not whether the evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission; rather, it is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision even though we might have reached a different conclusion if we sat as the trier of fact. Burris v. L & B Moving Storage , 83 Ark. App. 290, 123 S.W.3d 123 (2003). Credibility questions and the weight to be given to witness testimony are within the Commission’s exclusive province. Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr. , 2013 Ark. 186, 427 S.W.3d 586.
It is also within the Commission’s province to weigh all the medical evidence, to determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical soundness and probative force. Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker , 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999) ; LVL, Inc. v. Ragsdale , 2011 Ark. App. 144, at 7, 381 S.W.3d 869, 873. We have long held that the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman , 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171. In weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Jaynes , 2020 Ark. App. 70, at 3, 593 S.W.3d 519, 522. But when the Commission chooses to accept the testimony of one physician over that of another, the appellate court is powerless to reverse the decision. Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. , 2009 Ark. App. 531, at 3, 337 S.W.3d 531, 532 ().
USA Truck contends that the Commission erred in finding that the cervical fusion recommended by Dr. Armstrong was reasonably necessary in connection with Webster’s work-related injury and that the Commission improperly relied on Dr. Armstrong’s opinion without discussing or weighing other contradictory medical evidence that Webster’s condition was caused by degenerative disc disease.
The ALJ set forth a detailed factual summary of Webster’s medical treatment after the injury including Dr. Berestnev’s opinion that Webster’s condition was degenerative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bronco Indus. Servs., LLC v. Brooks
...evidence, to determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical soundness and probative force. USA Truck, Inc. v. Webster , 2020 Ark. App. 226, 599 S.W.3d 368. We have long held that the Commission's decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting me......